Is this a common usage of this one? I knew exactly what was meant, but haven't heard it used this way, in the sense of shanghai: To kidnap (a man) for compulsory service aboard a ship, especially after drugging him. ETYMOLOGY: After Shanghai, from the former custom of kidnapping sailors to man ships going to China. (Courtesy AHD)

The term used more broadly, without the connotation of drugging anybody, was "press," where the press-gangs would go out and collect men off the street to serve aboard ship, but that sense of the word has definitely faded.

Yes-- i think it is-- when a sailor was shanghi-ed or pressed-- he was force (kidnaped ) to serve as a seaman on a ship --likely one that didn't have a very good captain, or wasn't profitable. or for someother reason had trouble getting hands..

but the english where dragooning. they were forcable removing seahand they decided were english-- some men had come to US to avoid the draft-- but others, had come as immigrants to US-- and had lived in US 5 to 10 years.. no matter-- there was this ongoing battle with a little man from corisa on the continent of europe... So the men were not being forced to be serve as sailors-- they were being forced to serve in the navy.. hence dragooned..

likewise, NY pirates (now know as wall street traders) were busy raiding french and spanish shipping- but when picking got slim-- they started raiding english ships-- which the english didn't take to kindly to.. there were also pirated from other ports, but NY had a fearsome reputation for pirating.. (NY social values, then as now, valued money more highly than the sourse of the money.. )

To preserve Britain's naval strength, Royal Navy officers impressed thousands of seamen from U.S. vessels, including naturalized Americans of British origin, claiming that they were either deserters or British subjects. The United States defended its right to naturalize foreigners and challenged the British practice of impressment on the high seas. Relations between the two nations reached a breaking point in 1807 when the British frigate Leopard fired on the USS Chesapeake in American territorial waters and removed, and later executed, four seamen.

helen wrote: a well negotiated treaty-- each side got to salvage some pride, and claim victory..

That was what I was referring to in the CBC quote (which said something about "fighting to a standstill"). It is interesting that we were taught in school that Canada actually won that war. (I'm realizing in retrospect that a particular teacher of mine really hated Americans, and this tainted her lessons somewhat*. She also told us that in the US, children aren't even taught about that war, because they can't admit that they lost...boy, was she bitter or what?!?!?!) In Canada, we don't consider it a war between the British and the US, but between Canada and the US, because Britain wasn't too successful at actually sending too many troops to help us out, as far as I know. Most of the soldiers were Canadian, although officers were British. Needless to say, without the local knowledge of the land provided by the Canadians, the British couldn't possibly have had any success against the US. They say that if the French, English, and Native people here hadn't gotten together to keep out the US'ns then we would definitely have lost, and become part of the US. It is also interesting that that is probably the last time those three groups ever agreed on something!

*I'm beginning to feel extremely betrayed by this particular teacher - as I check the "facts" I learned from her, I realize that she was full of %#!$. Makes me reluctant to comment on history at all, since I had her for two history classes in high school, and my brain is probably stuffed with erroneous knowledge!

I think that, from the Canadian perspective you *did win the war. Y'all were innocently sitting there and US'ns wanted to "liberate" you from the yoke of the evil Brits. You successfully staved us off. You won.

in the US, children aren't even taught about that war

Not quite. We were taught that it was about the impressment of sailors and that we stopped that so we won. From a broader perspective, we came out, as of troy stated, with something like a draw, but, looking at the war from a more global perspective as AnnaS points out in her Beethoven/Tchaikovsky post, we were on the losing side. We don't go into that when we are filling *our little kiddies with *our version of the lies of history.

re: We were taught that it was about the impressment of sailors and that we stopped that so we won.

well a little more--Jackson's battle at N. O. is always trotted out, our big victory, as proof that we would have won- and the burning of Washington-- and the heroic rescue of Washingtons portrait.. but yes-- it is always presented as "the english where being bad, we had a war, the badness stopped" ergo-- we won.

All history is written by the winners-- we here in US still have trouble admitting how wrong we were to get involved with Vietnam, and how much wrong we did there.. my early education was at a catholic school-- and as result - i learned about Henry VIII's daughter-- "good Queen Mary"-- who tried to restore the catholic church to England-- by killing as many heritics as she could.. she is more commonly known in history as "bloody mary"-- and i fully confess to having very little real knowledge of african history (the congo comes to mind)-- Lubumba, and Mabutu (not sure of spelling) where presented as heathens-- and murderers-- and 7 nuns where matyred.. no facts-- just emotions.. interesting how the choice of words-- can change view of history--

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.